Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (342079)	1/12/2003 1:16:56 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

Even your additional quote does not support you assumption. The you can be indefinite. I would not conclude or infer what you have. My assumption does not come merely from the one post. It comes from a variety of statements made by the poster. I simply wished to make sure he understood I did not support reparations. My assumption was hardly stupid. It is most reasonable. Yet another example from Ken: [The ideas I propose are hopes] worth encouraging, as opposed to your incoherent drivel about reparations being "a few pennies", and the rejection of them "destroying America". Message 18432406 But I mentioned that reparations are a "few pennies" to contrast their relative insignificance to the slaughter of the unborn, which no one wishes to war about, despite that it is most divisive and actually threatens our lives. Moreover, the poster claims here I argue that the rejection of reparations is "destroying America." I've done nothing of the kind. He obviously thinks I support monetary reparations when I instead reject the idea that blacks need to fear being murdered for debating a goofy idea. If they need to fear such a thing, then their idea is not the problem. Those who would murder them for debating the goofy idea are the problem. I have seen no call from Cy to do anything barbarous. He uses words well that might rouse anger and action. An illustration of the way reparations will argued to the far more ignorant and volatile people. LOL. Maybe, but the barbarous idea is found in the apparent warning to blacks to not use the system to try and advance an idea (which is why the system exists!), lest they lose their lives. It is just no warning any American ought to accept, as it suggests a belief that American law will be trashed, innocent people murdered and that the victims are at fault. The blacks in this event would not be at fault. They think they are right and so advanced their idea within the system to see if it would float. By doing so they actually trusted the system. If some Americans hate the idea, they, as Americans, are obligated to engage the system like the blacks in order to resolve the issue. They have no right under the system to resort to murder. So then the warning need no be issued to the blacks, but to those who would be so anti-American as to circumvent our civilization with murder. The question is, is the question so volatile that it is like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. I believe it is a vile pernicious idea. It is complete un-American spirit. If you think this, then there is a system in place whereby you can promote your idea in civility. You have no right to murder within that system. That is the issue here. You don't have the right to shoot a guy even for yelling "fire!" After all, he may be hallucinating. I see no-one speaking of murder as advocate, I see only clear warnings being expressed. I don't see anyone calling for murder either. But I see quite a lot of misplaced blame being implied here, as if those who would murder are not in the severest error. Once again, it is most barbarous to warn blacks not to use our civilization to try and advance an idea lest they lose their lives. If we Americans reject the idea, we have a civilization in place such that it can be presented and then rejected without threat of murder. Hell maaan, that is what America is about.